Re: Questions about FUSE_NOTIFY_INVAL_ENTRY

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


(追記) (追記ここまで)



On 2025年8月20日 at 01:35, Jim Harris <jiharris@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Can we safely depend on the FUSE_NOTIFY_INVAL_ENTRY notifications to trigger FORGET commands for the associated inodes? If not, can we consider adding a new FUSE_NOTIFY_DROP_ENTRY notification that would ask the kernel to release the inode and send a FORGET command when memory pressure or clean-up is needed by the device?
As far as I understand what you want is drop the entry from the cache
*if it is unused*. Plain FUSE_NOTIFY_INVAL_ENTRY will unhash the
dentry regardless of its refcount, of course FORGET will be sent only
after the reference is released.
FUSE_NOTIFY_INVAL_ENTRY with FUSE_EXPIRE_ONLY will do something like
your desired FUSE_NOTIFY_DROP_ENTRY operation, at least on virtiofs
(fc->delete_stale is on). I notice there's a fuse_dir_changed() call
regardless of FUSE_EXPIRE_ONLY, which is not appropriate for the drop
case, this can probably be moved inside the !FUSE_EXPIRE_ONLY branch.
The other question is whether something more efficient should be
added. E.g. FUSE_NOTIFY_SHRINK_LOOKUP_CACHE with a num_drop argument
that tells fuse to try to drop this many unused entries?
Thanks,
Miklos

[Index of Archives] [KVM Development] [Libvirt Development] [Libvirt Users] [CentOS Virtualization] [Netdev] [Ethernet Bridging] [Linux Wireless] [Kernel Newbies] [Security] [Linux for Hams] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Yosemite Forum] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux RAID] [Linux Admin] [Samba]

(追記) (追記ここまで)
Powered by Linux

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /